Chattisgarh High Court
Sukhendra Singh Parihar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 April, 2022
Author: P. Sam Koshy
Bench: P. Sam Koshy
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 3035 of 2022
Sukhendra Singh Parihar S/o Late Shri Ram Vinod Singh Parihar Aged About
62 Years Posted As In-Charge, Ranger, Khodri Range, Marwahi Forest Division,
District Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh., District : Gaurela-Pendra-
Marwahi, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Forest Department, Atal Nagar,
Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
2. Joint Secretary Department Of Forest, Atal Nagar, Mantralaya Mahanadi
Bhawan, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. Divisional Forest Officer Marwahi Forest Division, District Gaurela-Pendra-
Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.
4. Dev Singh Thakur Posted As Ranger In Regional Training, Forest Division
Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Bhaskar Payashi, Advocate
For State : Mr. Kunal Das, PL
Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order on Board
28/04/2022
1. Aggrieved by the order Annxure P-5 dated 21.04.2022 the instant writ petition has been filed. Impugned order Annexure P-5 is the order passed by the State Government posting the various Ranger Officers in the Forest Division at various places. Annexure P-5 is an order which contains of more than 163 Ranger Officers who have been shifted from one place of another. In the process of issuance of Annexure P-5 the impugned order respondent no.4 has been transferred as a Range Officer at Khodri Range under Marwahi Forest Division.
2. Petitioner seems to be aggrieved by the posting of the respondent no.4 as the Range Officer at Khodri Range under Marwahi Forest Division. The ground of challenge is that the petitioner is holding the said post of Ranger of Khodri Range since 28.01.2021 and that petitioner since he has got only a short tenure 2 of service left it was not justified on the part of the respondents in sending the respondent no.4 at the place where petitioner was working as an In-charge Ranger for the last around 14-15 months. It is further contention of the petitioner that under the transfer policy governing the field, the respondents ought to have accommodated the petitioner considering the fact that he was to retire in a short span of time and he should not had been disturbed.
3. Yesterday, when the matter was taken up for hearing, State counsel was directed to seek instructions as to whether there will be any displacement of the petitioner from his present place of posting or not. Learned State counsel today submits that he has received instructions to the extent that petitioner would not be displaced from his present place of posting and the only effect would be that upon respondent no.4 assuming the duties of Ranger at Khodri Range the petitioner would have to discharge his duties which he was substantively holding prior to 21.08.2021 on which date he was made in-charge Ranger of Khodri Range. According to the State counsel prior to 21.08.2021 the petitioner was working as a Deputy Range Officer at the Forest Division of Marwahi and hw would continue to work as Deputy Range Office at Marwahi. It is only an additional charge that was assigned to the petitioner which would now be handed over to the respondent no.4 as a consequence of the implementation of Annexure P-5 dated 21.04.2022.
4. Given the said submissions made by the counsel for the respondent State, this Court finds that petitioner substantively is a Deputy Ranger and who was working as a Deputy Range Officer at Forest Division Marwahi, while working on the post of Deputy Ranger the then Range Officer Chandan Ketu Mahipal retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2021. It was in the context of retirement of the aforementioned Chandan Ketu Mahipal the Range Officer that led to the issuance of Annexure P-3 on 28.01.2021 giving the charge of Range Officer to the petitioner temporarily. Giving of the charge or petitioner being made the in-charge Range Officer does not preclude the State Government from making regular posting of the Range Officer at Khodri Range 3 where the petitioner was discharging the duties as an In-charge Ranger Officer. Only because the petitioner has a short span of service left for retirement also would not create any indefeasible right in favour of the petitioner to continue the stop gap arrangement made by the respondents upon the post falling vacant on retirement of the predecessors in office.
5. The fact that name of the petitioner is not reflected in the impugned order Annexure P-5 dated 21.04.2022 would also go to establish that there shall be no change of posting of the petitioner so far as his substantive post that he holds is concerned and that he was holding prior to his being made the In- charge Range Officer on 28.01.2021 and State Counsel also has received this precise instructions in this regard.
6. Given the said facts and contentions raised by the counsel for the parties, this Court does not find any indefeasible right created in favour of the petitioner to assail the impugned order Annexure P-5, more particularly for the reason that by Annexure P-5 the service conditions of the petitioner has not been in any manner infringed, nor has the petitioner been subjected to transfer vide the said impugned order. Rather it is vice-versa where respondent no.4 has been sent as a regular Range Officer on the post which was being held by the petitioner as an In-charge arrangement. This in other words means that petitioner continues to substantively remain at the same place on a substantive post of Deputy Ranger i.e. the place where he was working prior to issuance of Annexure P-3 dated 28.01.2021. The writ petition thus being bereft of merits deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rohit